By Chris Fitzsimon
Many of the decisions state lawmakers make this session will be influenced by November’s election and legislative leaders in both parties have plenty of people to help them figure out how certain issues will play with the voters. The Democratic Caucus in the House and Senate each has its own political consultants and pollsters, and so do their Republican counterparts. Staffs at both party headquarters are constantly cranking out the partisan propaganda too. As distasteful as it often is, that’s the nature of state politics in the 21st century and it is all amplified in the Internet age.
Less discussed is the influence on lawmakers of people who have always influenced them, the folks who bankroll their campaigns with donations and fundraisers. Lobbyists can no longer contribute money to legislators. Individual contributions to a candidate have long been limited to $4,000. And so have donations from political action committees.
But that doesn’t mean the homebuilders and realtors and wealthy UNC supporters can’t give money to politicians. They just give it through their PAC. Individual corporate executives can and do give personal money as well.
And the limits don’t mean much anyway. Donors determined to support a candidate can simply give money to his or her political party or legislative leaders and the money will eventually wind up with lawmakers in close races.
In the 2006 election cycle, Senate President Pro Tem Marc Basnight gave $1.1 million to the Democratic Party. Senate Majority Leader Tony Rand chipped in $520,000. When you add in the contributions of Sens. Linda Garrou and Kay Hagan, Basnight’s leadership team transferred roughly $2 million to the party that was then redistributed in hundred-thousand chunks to Senate candidates in close races.
That ought to help answer the question of how Basnight has stayed in power so long. The Republicans do it too, they just can’t yet raise as much money. Senate Minority Leader Phil Berger sent $211,000 to the Republican Party in 2006 and the party sent checks on to candidates too.
There is a solution to this legal money laundering that skirts the intent of contribution limits: Simply put a cap on the amount of money a political party can contribute to a candidate.
Legislation by Rep. Bill Current to study limiting party contributions made it through a House committee last summer, but doesn’t seem to have much momentum this session. And party contributions aren’t the only problem.
Fifty-six members of the General Assembly are unopposed for re-election: 42 in the House and 14 in the Senate. That does not include members with only token opposition.
Many of the 56 unopposed lawmakers have received significant contributions even though they have no one to run against and many of them have thousands of dollars in their campaign accounts.
PACs give liberally to unopposed candidates, including Citizens for Higher Education, the PAC run by wealthy donors to UNC-Chapel Hill. In the first quarter of the year, the Citizens for Higher Education gave almost $80,000 to lawmakers who had no primary opponent and face no one on the ballot in November.
The candidates with competition have raised close to $2 million so far this year and the election is still five months away.
One explanation offered as to why unopposed legislators need big money is to make possible opponents think twice before running, which doesn’t exactly add to the openness of the democratic process.
The other reason is that lawmakers contribute to contested campaigns and to their party, which passes the money on. Basnight, who is unopposed himself, had almost a million dollars in the bank at the end of March and you can bet he will raise more of it to pass around to Democratic senators in close races.
And what do the donors get for the checks they write to candidates with no opposition? The recent obituary marking the death of Texas oilman and prominent North Carolina political donor Walter Davis included one clue.
It quoted Davis saying that “a campaign contribution will only get you a returned phone call.†He added that “a donation wouldn’t guarantee you anything but a chance to be heard.â€
It is hard not to think there’s more to it than that, especially when you can throw money around like the UNC PAC and the realtors and homebuilders, etc. But that insight is useful, especially if you are wondering why you never seem to get your call returned, even from a politician without an opponent in the fall.
Chris Fitzsimon is the director of NC Policy Watch.